USB To Go Wireless

Troy Samuel writes "The WiMedia Alliance is planning to make the technology known as 'ultrawideband,' or UWB, work among a wide variety of consumer electronics devices. Various organizations, including the Bluetooth SIG, have chosen the WiMedia Alliance's version of UWB technology as the foundation for a next-generation short-range networking technology." From the article: "UWB technology can deliver data rates at up to 480 megabits per second at around 3 meters, with speeds dropping off as the range grows to a limit of about 10 meters. Real-world speeds will probably be a little slower, but this is as fast as the wired version of USB 2.0 and much faster than current Wi-Fi networks are capable of transmitting data. 'This stuff is plumbing,' Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates, said of the newer-generation wireless technology. 'It's important that it be there, it's going to be handy for getting rid of cables hanging around your desk.'"

Comments

Wireless Digital Monitor

[MankyD]

I'm curious - how much bandwidth is required to make a wireless monitor? Let's say its running at 1600x1200 with 24bit color. Anyone have any ideas?

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor

[illegalcortex]

A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

Actually, no. Imagine having your CPU in the closet and only your monitor and peripherals at your desk. Or imagine having a monitor/peripherals in a totally different room of the house/office.

Even if it's only two feet away, wireless is nice for... well, for removing wires. Systems can be such a cabling mess. I'm much rather bath in the invisible waves than have to deal with that rat's nest.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor

[jdray]

The first thing I thought of when reading the blurb was "video glasses arriving soon." I'd rather have 800x600, 16 bpp per lens at 24 fps, or 368.64 Mb/s, and get reasonable immersive 3D than I would a single stream of 1600x1200 at 24 bpp.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor

[Grishnakh]

A monitor's a rather pointless one though as it requires a cable for the power.

It seems to me that most of this wireless craze is pointless for the exact same reason. Just how hard is it to plug your USB key into your computer anyway? And what exactly is the point of a wireless keyboard?

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor

[Grishnakh]

It still seems like a solution in search of a problem.

I for one would like a wireless USB connection so that I could do time-lapse webcam shots from my deck.

Why not have a webcam with 802.11? Instead of inventing a whole new technology and protocol, you'd just have to slap a 802.11 chip and transceiver onto a webcam, and make some software to allow it to be accessed over the network. Plus we already have WEP and WPA to handle security.

Cablebox to PC for extra data storage from my PVR (assume HDTV bandwidth could be sustained).

This is a perfect application for Wifi (or even wired ethernet for those that already have their homes wired with Cat5). The higher speed of this UWB only works if your computer is very close to your device; most people don't keep their TVs in the same room as their computer with lots of storage.

Wireless memory card readers,

What's so hard about plugging your memory card into a slot on your computer? Or having a wired reader plugged in all the time if you use it that much?

iPod/MP3/PDA sync'ing.

This sounds handy, if a bit lazy (again, how hard is it to plug in if you're already sitting there?). But isn't this what Bluetooth was invented for? Or is UWB really supposed to be the higher-speed replacement for BT?

As other pointed out, wireless video to the monitor when MPEG-like quality is sufficient. Have a decoder built into the display.

So you'd basically need a small computer inside your monitor to decode the signal, just so you can save the trouble of a single cord? Somehow I don't think there's that many people out there who will want to pay the premium price for this "feature" to make this a mainstream thing.

And yes, I'm not sure about wireless keyboards for desktops, but my HTPC (home theater pc) was wireless as I don't want to sit near the 100in screen.

Yes, wireless keyboards make sense here, but it seems the vast majority are sold to people who use them at their desk.

Re:Wireless Digital Monitor

[IcePop456]

I'd rather skip the details, but 802.xx devices don't seem to "mount" the same at least in windows. I'm sure software can be written to do this, but I do not sure I want a browswer to handle a high-resolution camera. Again, software could be written.

As you pointed out, I'm lazy. My goal with technology is to make my life easier. Why plug stuff in when the device can just sit on my desk. Both iPod and memory card readers etc.

Wireless video connections to monitors would make wall mount TV's much easier. By stict definition I'm sure you can say it is a computer, but MPEG decoders are not high-end anymore. Your camera phone has one, albiet not great.

These are ideas to improve devices. If you don't want them nor see the value, the wired version will be around for a long time (think Xbox 360 controllers).

The problem with wireless devices...

[Name Anonymous]

1. Data security...
2. wirelss interference from another computer
3. wireless interference from other electronics and wireless devices

I am all for wireless devices that make sense. I sitll however use a wired keyboard and mouse on my desktop computer. On my laptop I use a bluetooth mouse to avoud the hassles of dealing with plugging and unplugging the mouse from the laptop.

Re:certified wireless USB--power anyone?

[bbernard]

For that matter, one of the benefits of USB is that power is delivered along with the data--how often do you change the batteries on your thumb-drive, or plug in your 2.5" external hard drive? So, directly compared to USB I still need the same number of cables, unless they're delivering power wirelessly too? Hmm...

Wireless video/speakers?

[truesaer]

One thing I've always wanted is to get rid of the cables for my LCD displays and my speakers. That would be 4 fewer cables cluttering my desk (2 LCDs, 1 cable between left and right speakers, 1 cable to speaker out jack). I'm not sure what the real time and data throughput requirements would be. This looks like its primarily intended to replace wired USB devices but what additional complexity would there be in getting rid of some of the other wires?

It would be nice if the only cables on my desk were power cables.

New Security Question

[frosty_tsm]

Does this mean that all I would need to do to spy on someone's pen drive is get within 10 meters and peek over UWB?

I assume there would be some encryption and passwords, but it's yet another security question to discuss.

So it'll probbably be possible with this tech

[MikShapi]

All you have to do is bond several channels together and there's your wireless monitor.
Wifi has, what, 11 channels? How many does wireless USB have?

Since the range on this is relatively tiny, you can probbably aggregate, say, 5 or 6 WUB channels into a single 2+Gbit channel to talk to your monitor. Sure, you'll be barred from putting more than 1 or 2 in close proximity, and yet... For the price of 5-6 transmitter chips at each end and a bit more core logic, a manufacturer can probbably piece this together today and it probbably won't cost too much either, at least once some competition throws in.